Slashdot Mirror


Oldest-Known Terrestrial Rocks Unearthed

wdavies writes "There are various news reports (see this Google search) Oldest Rocks University Quebec that are reporting the discovery of the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found. There are older rocks, but they are extra-terrestrial, and apparently these Earth-local rocks will give a lot more information about the early stages of life on our planet. IANAG so I can't judge any more, but seems significant"

20 comments

  1. Obligatory by TwistedKestrel · · Score: 1, Funny

    Wow! That totally rocks!

  2. I'm confused by darthBear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why exactly is this in developers?
    Please don't tell me this is considered an early beta of rock or something.

    1. Re:I'm confused by the_other_one · · Score: 4, Funny

      They found some fossilized developer manuals, hair dresser equipment, and a telephone sanitizer license.

      --
      134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
    2. Re:I'm confused by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

      i don't know, but i think this is an Open Source success. After all, many eyes make all rocks unearthed. If this had been an MS rock, it would have remained buried for who know how long!

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    3. Re:I'm confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no shit. wtf is it doing in developers?

    4. Re:I'm confused by TheDauthi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Analysis 1: The rocks give amazing insights about the early phases of life on this planet. Most developers hate lawyers, and thus need to get as much information about them as possible.

      Analysis 2: The submitter and editor were making a subtle comment toward how God was the first developer.

      Analysis 3: The rocks are thought to be extra-terrestial in origin. Just like most developers.

      Analysis 4: The editor that placed it is stoned, no pun intended. If they are smoking up, that would also explain the duplicates, the other mismatched columns, and perhaps even CmdrTaco's 3 hour hiatus between typing up the note on Mozilla and hitting the save button.

    5. Re:I'm confused by Randolpho · · Score: 1

      Come on... somebody mod that post up!

      You are personally responsible for coke all over my keyboard, I hope you're happy. :)

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
  3. Slashdot Editors on Crack again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In an effort to avoid duplications, now stories are being out into random categories.

    Er, editors try "Science".

  4. It's not a rock... by stubear · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...it's Strom Thurmond's head.

  5. You're not the only one... by handsomepete · · Score: 1

    Maybe they thought the submission was about Rox...?

  6. Re:not significant by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 2
    ...despite what some geologist may say. by their own word "geology is not an exact science". and nothing could be more true, it's a collection of hikers looking for a reason to visit the latest 'geological' hot spot... like hawaii, or chile.

    ...and there's a problem with this? Keep it quiet before too many other people get in on the scam.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  7. Re:not significant by sc7007 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    i quit geological engineering after three years. geology is not significant. despite what some geologist may say. by their own word "geology is not an exact science". and nothing could be more true, it's a collection of hikers looking for a reason to visit the latest 'geological' hot spot... like hawaii, or chile.

    Well, I am a geologist and I can say that it is definately significant. Most every resource mined on this planet comes to you through the work, if not always discovery, of geologists. Not to mention all of the work done by other branches of geology such as geochemists and paleontologists to explain the origin and deveopement of life on earth. Now, as for geological engineering, that may be another story. They are usually, in my experience (with no offense meant to any engineer), engineers who took some geology classes because they figures two or three would teach them all the geology they would need to know. Nothing could be further from the truth. Engineers, also in my experience, have a very difficult time understanding geology. Has something to do with not being trained to look at the big picture, as well as the smallest possible detail.

  8. this is in Developers why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news:

    God was seen earlier creating Earth, probably in COBOL.

  9. Re:not significant by wojie · · Score: 1

    in three years of engineering i completed 9 geology courses, several in igneous, a couple sedimentary, mineralogy, and several field courses, which is as much as any geology major -- especially since i specialised in exploration. the only useful geology i found is being done across the street from the geology department, in the physics building, by geophysicists. who actually develop exploration and excavation techniques. geologists are recruited as lackeys who do the manual labour -- no offense. three years was plenty to give a very detailed dose of geology. and there isn't a single group of people anywhere else who refuse to look at the big picture, or the really small one, as much as they do.

    there were masters students in geology trying to figure the optical theory of why rose quartz is pink, and they hadn't bothered to ask anyone in the physics department whether that had already been done (this even i can now explain with basic undergrad physics). there were profs whose life's work had been determining whether lake superior is a crater or not, and then charting the bedrock underneath it.

    i compare that to walking around with measuring tape and notepad and measuring everything you come into contact with because some of it might be useful some day. no underlying purpose.

    geochemists? yes, a better bunch. geophysicists, even better. but geologists? glorified polsters.

  10. Editors, Editors, Editors, Editors! by ENOENT · · Score: 1

    Yes! If /. is going to dominate the universe, we need Editors! Preferably ones that will reject crap articles that have no actual information, and the only link is a google search. Then again, at least this story hasn't appeared four times in the past week.

    --
    That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
  11. Sedimentary rocks that old? by mikerich · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Almost all rocks of similar ages have been through one or more periods of metamorphism and have undergone physical and chemical changes. Their age just makes it nearly inevitable that they will have been through a mountain-building phase or two. Those rocks that weren't just recycled get heated up, squeezed and exposed to hot reactive fluids. Naturally they don't come out that well.

    The Isua Complex in Greenland which appears to be older than these new samples has undergone several metamorphic episodes during which igneous and sedimentary rocks have been converted into new rocks like gneiss.

    Sadly that process tends to destroy all of the potential fossil evidence. There are blobs of carbonaceous material in the Isua rocks which some people have ascribed to early life.

    If these new rocks really do contain sediments it could be a fascinating chance to see if life had been kick-started by this time.

    Thanks for posting!

    Best wishes,
    Mike.

  12. ...huh.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Like, how old do you tell a rock is?

    It's not like rocks have little labels on them or anything.

    I mean, the whole world is like five billion years old or something, right? So technically all the rocks in the world are that old.

    Am I missing something?